If you are talking about "Fixing the History Books" by Brad Aaronson, which I'm assuming is her brother, I remember that someone on talkreason.org wrote a response called "fixing the mind."
With Lisa, you can find David S Levene's (professor of classics) online.
Yes. Aaronson was my name until I moved back to Israel in 1997 and changed it. I spent 8 years having Israelis misspelling Aaronson in Hebrew (and telling me that *I* was misspelling it), so I changed it.
Also came across this today, and curious what everyone in the forum here thinks (not giving an opinion, pure curiosity)
“How to explain the differences?
- Up to the time of the Exodus, both chronologies are identical, simply because the chronology of the Bible is very detailed from the Creation until Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt
- For the Exodus, the main reference is that exile of the Hebrews in Egypt ended after 430 years; this duration is counted from the presumed year of the Covenant, which is not precisely dated in the Biblical text; the discrepancy of six years has been explained in the page for Generation 21 ; yet both chronologies place the Exodus during the reign of Horemheb, last Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty
- For the construction of the First Temple, it started 480 years "from the Exodus" according to interpretations of the Biblical text; so the Seder Olam added 480 to their calculation of the year of Exodus (2448) to reach the Hebrew year 2928 (about 832 BCE); but this simple assumption would make the period of Judges and Kings far too lenghty and the result does not fit any archaeological evidence about the presumed reign of David and Solomon (around 1000 BCE); this is a major mismatch compared to historical facts (for example the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by several Assyrian invasions in 744-718 BCE); the correct interpretation of these 480 years obviously ought to be different and has been explained in the page for Generation 23 - Part III which took into account 480 years from the first exit of the Bene-Israel (as of Sons of Jacob-Israel) from Egypt and not the actual Exodus; the Biblical text also mentions a period of 300 years at the time of Judge Yiftah and this specific duration is also explained in the page for Generation 23 - Part I. This issue causes a difference of 183 years between the Seder Olam and the present revised chronology.
- The destruction of the First Temple is assumed to have happened 410 years from its foundation (its construction took 7 years); and there is historical evidence for this particular event, based on the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BCE; the Seder Olam has reached the calculation of this destruction as having happened in the Hebrew year 3338 which corresponds to 422 BCE, which is far too late a date to fit the historical evidence. The reason for this discrepancy is chiefly caused by the above issue (the difference of 183 years); but then there is also another issue related to the 410 years, as explained in the page for Generation 27. As a result, the difference between the Seder Olam and the present revised chronology is now of 165 years.“
This excerpt is rather unclear and doesn't present the full picture that it seems to reference from other pages. Briefly, the discrepancy of the 165 years is related to the persian and early hellenistic periods specifically. However, the earlier periods also contain other, seperate issues, but that is related to the patriarchal narratives, the exodus, and biblical prehistory. Nevertheless, the place that we roughly have common ground is the main biblical period, which roughly corresponds to the Iron Age.
1200 (the beginning of the Iron Age) is approximately when the archaeological and historical records first attest to the existence of Israelite tribes. This corresponds to the biblical period of the Judges. An strong date that we have after that in the invasion of Shoshenq I in the 4th year of Rehoboam (son of Solomon) in 926 (with a possible error of up to 4 years). Accepting the biblical chronology, this places king david in 1010 bce, and the completion of solomons temple in 966. After this the egyptian, assyrian and babylonian records are roughly in sync with the biblical chronology, with prominent markers in 722 (exile of samaria), 705 (siege of jerusalem by sennacherib), 605 (battle of charcemish and rise of babylon in place of assyria), and 586 (destruction of jerusalem). This accounts for solomons temple standng for 380 years, very close to the chronology of the book of kings (which contains several ambiguities). Then we have the fall of babylon in 539 (47 years later roughly equivalent to the SO 52). The main discrepancy is the next period. SO deletes 165 from persian rule (which began in 539) and the early hellenistic period (which began in 333) and instead has alexanders conquest in 317/8 and the persian period beginning only 52 years prior (in 369/70). This would mean that the SO can roughly match with the iron age period just adjusting the absolute dates by the discrepancy caused by the persian period. However, the relevant evidence from the conventional chronology includes both evidence of the persian period itself (both about persia and in other synchronized civilizations such as egypt and greece), and evidence for absolute dates (from methods like astronomical dates, dendrochronology, and carbon-14) which encompasses evidence from both the persian period and the preceding iron age (and to a smaller measure from the bronze age as well).
I actually had a brief email conversation years ago with historian David Levene (mentioned in a previous comment) about Hool's book. His comments:
1. Achashverosh linguistically has to be Xerxes, not Cambyses
2. Thucydides, Aeschylus, Xenophon, Isocrates, Hyperides all make clear that the Persians were not ruling alongside the Greeks but were in fact fighting the Greeks, they make very clear that Alexander the Great did not conquer the Persian Empire from Darius I, but from Darius III
3. We have Athenian archon lists that can also independently verify that chronology (Hool would say they got made up?)
Also kinda funny how Hool's defense of Seder Olam chronology completely invalidates the Kuzari argument, that nations can't falsify their own history
Yes, I wrote to DL, and he sent me his response he gave to an anonymous person beforehand.
Regarding the Kuzari Principle, I spoke to some readers of Hool who realized that it would be a problem. But given the fact that historical facts are established by probability, that means there is always a POSSIBILITY that Seder Olam is right all along!
I also wrote to Sacha Stern, who besides for being a wonderful academic scholar on the Jewish calendar, also wears a white shirt, bread, and yamekah. Strangely, he actually read Hool's book! And while he complemented him for his genius solution, he nevertheless said his chronology is total nonsense.
The latter, his argument is that history is generally unimportant. This was the first in a miniseries on topic. As an aside, he also argues that chazal were of this opinion (they didn’t care for history)
I don't think they cared for history, but they did car for stories, and they believed in stories like every other ancient culture and even modern cultures do.
"How on earth would such a complex forgery be accomplished?"
Rabbi Hool explains on page 100. He also quotes Newton on the subject at length. See page 104.
(I'm not pretending to be competent on the general discussion. I've been trying to get through Hool's book for years but keep putting it aside when I find myself spacing out, turning the pages in boredom, and staring at the pictures of cylinders.
I also only skimmed your post. I hope to read your post in detail if and when I ever really read the book it's critiquicing.)
Yes, my understanding with the Isaac Newton quote is about the earliest kings of the Greeks. In many cultures, the earliest rulers were mythical,.and lived for long times. The Sumerians kings list and Genesis 5, are similar in that regard. Myths and legends can develop in absence of historical documentation, but usually not in light of it. Thus I don't see the relevance of Isaac Newton's critique, because he wasn't talking about our timeframe.
My article was written in order of Hool's book, so if you read through a small section, you can always just read the corresponding small section of my crtique.
@yossi Kenner is more qualified to respond to it, but I read the article and it's utter stupidity. He simply cherrypicks ideas and stories and from Greek narratives and plays a matching game with whatever midrash he decided to like. It's not systematic at all and he simply pretends that we have no evidence for the standard chronology besides the works of herodotus, and even that he unfairly dismisses in favor of some random rabbinic statement which unlike herodotus, is far from contemporary about the events discussed.
Can I ask why anyone cares? Is there anyone out there who takes Hools work seriously except for himself? I don't get his audience at all. Those who don't know about the subject don't care about the answers and those who care know enough that he's ridiculous. I'm not sure I know a single person who accepts his chronology
I guess my father makes one man. I met others who thought it was worth something. Originally I was just going to ask Hool and Levene about the different data points, but when Hool switched his opinion on the Samaria Papyri, it got me mad and I decided to debunk his claims for the lazy public.
I listened to his lecture, it seems like Lowy is explaining that historical development doesn't explain why we really do Jewish practices. But he doesn't actually talk about our controversy in particular.
If you are talking about "Fixing the History Books" by Brad Aaronson, which I'm assuming is her brother, I remember that someone on talkreason.org wrote a response called "fixing the mind."
With Lisa, you can find David S Levene's (professor of classics) online.
https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/missing-years-in-the-hebrew-calendar/
Are Lisa Liel and Lisa Aaronson the same person?
I don't know for sure, but the charters are so similar that I bet they are. Probably Aaronson is a maiden name.
Yes. Aaronson was my name until I moved back to Israel in 1997 and changed it. I spent 8 years having Israelis misspelling Aaronson in Hebrew (and telling me that *I* was misspelling it), so I changed it.
Also came across this today, and curious what everyone in the forum here thinks (not giving an opinion, pure curiosity)
“How to explain the differences?
- Up to the time of the Exodus, both chronologies are identical, simply because the chronology of the Bible is very detailed from the Creation until Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt
- For the Exodus, the main reference is that exile of the Hebrews in Egypt ended after 430 years; this duration is counted from the presumed year of the Covenant, which is not precisely dated in the Biblical text; the discrepancy of six years has been explained in the page for Generation 21 ; yet both chronologies place the Exodus during the reign of Horemheb, last Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty
- For the construction of the First Temple, it started 480 years "from the Exodus" according to interpretations of the Biblical text; so the Seder Olam added 480 to their calculation of the year of Exodus (2448) to reach the Hebrew year 2928 (about 832 BCE); but this simple assumption would make the period of Judges and Kings far too lenghty and the result does not fit any archaeological evidence about the presumed reign of David and Solomon (around 1000 BCE); this is a major mismatch compared to historical facts (for example the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by several Assyrian invasions in 744-718 BCE); the correct interpretation of these 480 years obviously ought to be different and has been explained in the page for Generation 23 - Part III which took into account 480 years from the first exit of the Bene-Israel (as of Sons of Jacob-Israel) from Egypt and not the actual Exodus; the Biblical text also mentions a period of 300 years at the time of Judge Yiftah and this specific duration is also explained in the page for Generation 23 - Part I. This issue causes a difference of 183 years between the Seder Olam and the present revised chronology.
- The destruction of the First Temple is assumed to have happened 410 years from its foundation (its construction took 7 years); and there is historical evidence for this particular event, based on the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BCE; the Seder Olam has reached the calculation of this destruction as having happened in the Hebrew year 3338 which corresponds to 422 BCE, which is far too late a date to fit the historical evidence. The reason for this discrepancy is chiefly caused by the above issue (the difference of 183 years); but then there is also another issue related to the 410 years, as explained in the page for Generation 27. As a result, the difference between the Seder Olam and the present revised chronology is now of 165 years.“
This excerpt is rather unclear and doesn't present the full picture that it seems to reference from other pages. Briefly, the discrepancy of the 165 years is related to the persian and early hellenistic periods specifically. However, the earlier periods also contain other, seperate issues, but that is related to the patriarchal narratives, the exodus, and biblical prehistory. Nevertheless, the place that we roughly have common ground is the main biblical period, which roughly corresponds to the Iron Age.
1200 (the beginning of the Iron Age) is approximately when the archaeological and historical records first attest to the existence of Israelite tribes. This corresponds to the biblical period of the Judges. An strong date that we have after that in the invasion of Shoshenq I in the 4th year of Rehoboam (son of Solomon) in 926 (with a possible error of up to 4 years). Accepting the biblical chronology, this places king david in 1010 bce, and the completion of solomons temple in 966. After this the egyptian, assyrian and babylonian records are roughly in sync with the biblical chronology, with prominent markers in 722 (exile of samaria), 705 (siege of jerusalem by sennacherib), 605 (battle of charcemish and rise of babylon in place of assyria), and 586 (destruction of jerusalem). This accounts for solomons temple standng for 380 years, very close to the chronology of the book of kings (which contains several ambiguities). Then we have the fall of babylon in 539 (47 years later roughly equivalent to the SO 52). The main discrepancy is the next period. SO deletes 165 from persian rule (which began in 539) and the early hellenistic period (which began in 333) and instead has alexanders conquest in 317/8 and the persian period beginning only 52 years prior (in 369/70). This would mean that the SO can roughly match with the iron age period just adjusting the absolute dates by the discrepancy caused by the persian period. However, the relevant evidence from the conventional chronology includes both evidence of the persian period itself (both about persia and in other synchronized civilizations such as egypt and greece), and evidence for absolute dates (from methods like astronomical dates, dendrochronology, and carbon-14) which encompasses evidence from both the persian period and the preceding iron age (and to a smaller measure from the bronze age as well).
Hope this helps.
Where is this from?
http://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-g33-mishna.html#seder_olam_rabbah
Was from here
the talkreason link isn’t working, Lisa have you read the response to the article, and did it debunk the theory?
Yes, it was an old atheist type place. Perhaps it closed down.
Can I ask what talkreason link? Are you talking about David Levene? Because if so, then no.
You don’t think it correctly attacked your position? Why not? What exactly about it was flawed?
It was on a website call star something. That's all I recall
https://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/heifetzfix.html
For those interested in the talkreason article, it's archived here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230204030710/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fixing1.cfm
In general, all talkreason articles are archived there (I was recently revisiting one of my favorite pieces from there)
I actually had a brief email conversation years ago with historian David Levene (mentioned in a previous comment) about Hool's book. His comments:
1. Achashverosh linguistically has to be Xerxes, not Cambyses
2. Thucydides, Aeschylus, Xenophon, Isocrates, Hyperides all make clear that the Persians were not ruling alongside the Greeks but were in fact fighting the Greeks, they make very clear that Alexander the Great did not conquer the Persian Empire from Darius I, but from Darius III
3. We have Athenian archon lists that can also independently verify that chronology (Hool would say they got made up?)
Also kinda funny how Hool's defense of Seder Olam chronology completely invalidates the Kuzari argument, that nations can't falsify their own history
Yes, I wrote to DL, and he sent me his response he gave to an anonymous person beforehand.
Regarding the Kuzari Principle, I spoke to some readers of Hool who realized that it would be a problem. But given the fact that historical facts are established by probability, that means there is always a POSSIBILITY that Seder Olam is right all along!
I also wrote to Sacha Stern, who besides for being a wonderful academic scholar on the Jewish calendar, also wears a white shirt, bread, and yamekah. Strangely, he actually read Hool's book! And while he complemented him for his genius solution, he nevertheless said his chronology is total nonsense.
The latter, his argument is that history is generally unimportant. This was the first in a miniseries on topic. As an aside, he also argues that chazal were of this opinion (they didn’t care for history)
I don't think they cared for history, but they did car for stories, and they believed in stories like every other ancient culture and even modern cultures do.
Paging @LisaLiel https://open.substack.com/pub/lisaliel?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=33pit
She wrote another response some years back.
"How on earth would such a complex forgery be accomplished?"
Rabbi Hool explains on page 100. He also quotes Newton on the subject at length. See page 104.
(I'm not pretending to be competent on the general discussion. I've been trying to get through Hool's book for years but keep putting it aside when I find myself spacing out, turning the pages in boredom, and staring at the pictures of cylinders.
I also only skimmed your post. I hope to read your post in detail if and when I ever really read the book it's critiquicing.)
Yes, my understanding with the Isaac Newton quote is about the earliest kings of the Greeks. In many cultures, the earliest rulers were mythical,.and lived for long times. The Sumerians kings list and Genesis 5, are similar in that regard. Myths and legends can develop in absence of historical documentation, but usually not in light of it. Thus I don't see the relevance of Isaac Newton's critique, because he wasn't talking about our timeframe.
My article was written in order of Hool's book, so if you read through a small section, you can always just read the corresponding small section of my crtique.
Curious if either author finds anything problematic with the following piece?
https://www.simpletoremember.com/other/History166.htm
@yossi Kenner is more qualified to respond to it, but I read the article and it's utter stupidity. He simply cherrypicks ideas and stories and from Greek narratives and plays a matching game with whatever midrash he decided to like. It's not systematic at all and he simply pretends that we have no evidence for the standard chronology besides the works of herodotus, and even that he unfairly dismisses in favor of some random rabbinic statement which unlike herodotus, is far from contemporary about the events discussed.
Yes, this is the same as https://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/heifetzfix.html
Check earlier comments for some sources against it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lisaliel/p/the-exodus-and-ancient-history?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=33pit
Oy vey! Velikosky BS has been resurrected by the counter-missonaries! Someone call Kenneth Kitchen to debunk this nonsense.
Can I ask why anyone cares? Is there anyone out there who takes Hools work seriously except for himself? I don't get his audience at all. Those who don't know about the subject don't care about the answers and those who care know enough that he's ridiculous. I'm not sure I know a single person who accepts his chronology
I guess my father makes one man. I met others who thought it was worth something. Originally I was just going to ask Hool and Levene about the different data points, but when Hool switched his opinion on the Samaria Papyri, it got me mad and I decided to debunk his claims for the lazy public.
The latter
Response from Yitzchok Lowy https://youtu.be/Ixo-ppRfqp0?si=yLHWQeyR6wHLXp93
Does he defend the SO chronology or does he defend that the SO being historically inaccurate is not theologically problematic?
I listened to his lecture, it seems like Lowy is explaining that historical development doesn't explain why we really do Jewish practices. But he doesn't actually talk about our controversy in particular.
The latter